El Turista PDF

## CAPÍTULO 3 EL TURISTA ### 3.1. PRESENTACIÓN The main objective of this chapter is to analyze the main component of tourism from a psychological perspective: individual behavior and tourist role typologies. As in the previous chapter, the approach here is from a broad psychological, social, and...

## CAPÍTULO 3 EL TURISTA ### 3.1. PRESENTACIÓN The main objective of this chapter is to analyze the main component of tourism from a psychological perspective: individual behavior and tourist role typologies. As in the previous chapter, the approach here is from a broad psychological, social, and cultural perspective, complemented by the formal point of view of the main institutions and administrations of tourism, both international and national (World Tourism Organization, Tourespaña, Institute of Tourism Studies, etc. ), which establish a methodology to define, quantify, and differentiate tourist behavior from other similar behavior but with different purposes (work, immigration, refugees, etc.), an issue that is not without controversy, which will also be addressed. ### 3.2. CONCEPT OF TOURIST AND TRAVELER: TYPOLOGY OF ROLES The concept of tourist, closely related, as is obvious, to tourism, has been addressed from different disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Each one of them poses a definition and classification of the individuals and groups that practice traveling and tourism based on a series of formal institutional criteria that we will review. **DEFINITION** In technical terms and according to the definition adopted by the World Tourism Organization (OMT, 1999, 5) a traveler is any person who travels within or outside their country of residence for any reason and using any means of transport. It distinguishes two types of travelers: the visitor: anyone who travels to a place different from their usual surroundings, within or outside their country of residence, for a period of less than 12 months and whose main purpose is not to carry out paid work in the place visited. Within visitors, it also distinguishes between tourists: "a visitor who stays overnight at the place visited"; and excursionists or day visitors who do not stay overnight at the destination. It also establishes characteristics to define those people who, although they travel, are not considered tourists, such as refugees, emigrants, cross-border workers, daily commuters to work, diplomats, and military personnel, travelers in transit, passersby, transport professionals and commercial travelers. It also classifies visitors into a) international: whose country of residence is different from the country visited, excluding from this category immigrants, cross-border workers (border workers), diplomats, military personnel, refugees, and nomads; and b) national or domestic, those who visit their own country, excluding people who travel to establish their residence elsewhere, those who travel to work, temporary or regular trips, regular or frequent trips between nearby towns to work or study, nomads without a fixed residence and the armed forces on maneuvers. From a psychosocial point of view, Smith (1989) introduces a factor in the previous definition: the availability of free time. For this author, the tourist is that individual who has free time at a particular point in time and uses it to voluntarily visit some place away from their home with the aim of changing their surroundings. Pearce (1982) focuses the issue from a different angle, as we will see shortly, and at the same time shows a certain sarcasm by putting in the mouth of the novelist Henry James, a definition of tourists that is somewhat peculiar: "all tourists were vulgar, vulgar, vulgar" 1, but he completes the sentence with another quote from which he will build his well-known tourist role system: "Tourists were originally were originally a class apart […] Others travelers who did not want to mix with them or it was not necessary to do so […] Today, on the contrary, traveling has been homogenizing these behaviors in a remarkable way: tourists, participants in congresses and conventions, archaeologists, reporters who cover different events, diplomats, and businessmen who look for new markets, coincide not only in airports, bus terminals or other modes of transport, but also in accommodation as a common point of destination […] (28). In reality, Pearce with this quote is raising one of the epistemological issues of tourism, the most controversial: Are all travelers tourists?This has led to a large number of researchers with different specialties to develop a series of typologies aimed at predicting general patterns of behavior related to tourist trips (Plog, 1972, 1991b; Boorstin 1961; Cohen, 1972; Smith 1977; Lee and Crompton 1992). Pearce (1982) considers it more fruitful, rather than defining tourist behavior, to propose a taxonomic criterion of tourist roles that allows us to differentiate them from other non-tourist roles but also associated with travel. These criteria are as follows: 1. Range of tourist-related roles. 2. Separation of tourist roles from those that are not. 3. Index of relationship between roles. 4. Social use of the travel experience. He uses these four criteria to evaluate a series of theoretical models collected in Table 3.1, of which the one that achieves the best results is Erik Cohen's model. Based on these criteria, Pearce (1982, 1985) proposes to a sample of 100 travelers to relate 15 roles with 20 behaviors associated with the trip, determining each subject to what extent each behavior was associated with each role. Table 3.2 shows this relationship. ### TABLE 3.1 | Author | Perspective | Basic elements of taxonomy | |---|---|---| | Cohen (1972) | Degree of institutionalization and impact on the host society | Organized mass tourist, individual mass tourist, explorer, aimless traveler | | Chadwick (1976) | Tree diagram | Travelers for pleasure, business tourists, emigrants, students, crews, workers, temporary workers, seasonal workers, travelers in transit | | Cohen (1974) | Clarity of linkage | Tourist, thermalist, student, pilgrim, visitors to old countries, business tourists, employees of tourism | | Packer (1974) | Detailed observation of tourism in Greece | Tourist, jet-setter, executive, employee of travel agencies, hippy, foreigner | | Smith (1978) | Categories | Ethnic tourism, cultural tourism, historical tourism, environmental tourism, recreational tourism | **SOURCE** Pearce (1982). ### TABLE 3.2 | Categories of travelers | Behaviors (5) related to the tourist activity (according to their relative importance) | |---|---| | Tourist | Takes photos, buys souvenirs, travels to famous sites, stays in only one place and does not understand the local population | | Traveler | Stays in only one place, experiences local food, travels to famous sites, takes photos and explores private sites | | Excursionist | Takes photos, travels to famous sites, is alienated, buys souvenirs, contributes to the local economy | | Jet-set | Lives luxuriously, seeks social status, seeks sensual pleasure, prefers to interact with the local population, travels to famous sites | | Business traveler | Seeks social status, contributes to the local economy, does not take photos, prefers to interact with the local population, lives a luxurious life | | Emigrant | Has language problems, prefers to interact with the local population, does not understand the local population, does not live a luxurious life and does not exploit local people | | Ecologist | Interested in the local environment, does not buy souvenirs, does not exploit local people, explores privately, takes photos | | Explorer | Explores privately, is interested in the environment, takes physical risks, does not buy souvenirs, observes the local society | | Missionary | Does not buy souvenirs, seeks the meaning of life, does not live a luxurious life, does not seek sensual pleasures, wants to observe the local | | Student | Experiences with local food, does not exploit the local population, takes photos, observes the society they visit, take physical risks | | Anthropologist | Observes the society they visit, explores privately, is interested in the environment, does not buy souvenirs, takes photos | | Hippie | Does not buy souvenirs, does not live a luxurious life, is not interested in social | | International sports person | Does not exploit the local population, does not understand the local population, does not take photos, explores privately, seeks the meaning of life | | International journalist | Takes photos, observes the local society, goes to famous sites, take physical risks, explores privately | | Pilgrim | Seeks the meaning of life, does not live a luxurious life, is not concerned with social | | **SOURCE:** Pearce (1982, 32). ### TABLE 3.3 | Behaviors related to the tourist roles | Categories of travel in order of importance| |---|---| | Taking photos | Tourist, journalist, excursionist, explorer and anthropologist | | Exploiting the local population | Ecologist (-), pilgrim (-), explorer (-) , student (-), business traveler | | Going to famous places | Tourist, jet-set, journalist, excursionist and hippy (-)| | Understanding the local population | Tourist (-), emigrant (-), jet-set (-), anthropologist and international athlete (-)| | Living a luxurious life | Jet-set, hippy (-), missionary (-), pilgrim (-), business traveler | | Observing the society visited | Anthropologist, journalist, explorer, missionary and ecologist| | Contributing to the economy | Business traveler, hippy (-), tourist, pilgrim (-) and excursionist| | Showing interest in the environment | Ecologist, explorer, anthropologist, jet-set (-) and business traveler (-) | | Not belonging to the environment | Tourist traveler jet set, excursionist, journalist | | Taking physical risks | Explorer, business traveler (-), jet-set (-), journalist, tourist (-) | | Being alienated | Hippy, emigrant, missionary, pilgrim and explorer| | Spending a short time in the place | Tourist, jet-set, traveler, international athlete and explorer | | Problems with the native language | Emigrant, tourist, student, athlete and traveler | | Trying local food | Student, tourist, traveler, jet-set and journalist | | Exploring places privately | Explorer, anthropologist, ecologist, journalist and traveler | | Worrying about social status | Jet-set, business traveler, hippy (-), missionary (-) and pilgrim (-) | | Trying to make sense of your life | Missionary, pilgrim (-), hippy, anthropologist and ecologist | | Seeking sensual pleasures | Jet-set, missionary (-), hippy, pilgrim (-), business traveler | | Preferring relationships with like-minded people | Tourist, emigrant, hippy (-), ecologist, athlete international| | Buying souvenirs | Tourist, missionary (-), hippy (-), ecologist (-), explorer (-) | **SOURCE:** Pearce (1982, 34). **Note** Categories of travelers that have a negative sign imply that the role has very little to do with that behavior. ### TABLE 3.4 | Category of role | Index of role related to travelling | |---|---| | Tourist | Range = 1 total belonging (totally subjective) Range = 0 non belonging (not subjective) 0.45 | | Jet-set | 0.48 | | Explorer | 0.48| | Hippy | 0.51 | | Businessman | 0.52 | | Missionary | 0,52 | | Anthropologist | 0.55 | | Ecologist | 0.55 | | Pilgrim | 0.56 | | Excursionist | 0.57 | | Emigrant | 0.57 | | Journalist | 0.59 | | Traveler | 0.60 | | Student | 0.60 | | International athlete | 0.61 | **SOURCE**: Pearce (1982, 35). As can be seen from the results (Table 3.4), the roles of tourist (0.45), jet-set (0.48), and explorer (0.48) are the most clearly identified and are therefore less blurry than the roles of traveler (0.60), student (0.60), and athlete (0.61). After a few years, with a multidimensional analysis, he reduces his model to just five roles (Table 3.5). ### TABLE 3.5 | Environmental Travel | High contact travel | Spiritual travel | Pleasure travel | Exploitative travel | |---|---|---|---|---| | Anthropologist | Traveler | Hippie | Jet-set| Business traveler| | Ecologist | Student | Pilgrim | Tourist | Jet-set| | Explorer | Journalist | Missionary | Holidaymaker | - | **SOURCE** Pearce (1987) Stanley Plog (1972), one of the tourism psychologists whose popularity perhaps does not correspond to the scientific rigor presented in some of his works, establishes a definition of tourists within the framework of his popular psychographic model of tourist personality. In it he establishes his main hypothesis, based on the fact that there are different personality characteristics of individuals throughout a bipolar continuum of personality types which can be classified to the population throughout a bipolar continuum, covering the two poles -psychocentrism | alocentrism-, and between which they place other intermediate ones such as semialocentrism, closer to the second, and semipsychocentrism, closer to the first and mediocentrism in the center (Plog, 1991b) . This continuum is distributed in a normal curve where at one end are the allocentrics who prefer independent vacation experiences, and at the other end are the psychocentric whose preferences are contrary (Figure 3.1). ### FIGURE 3.5 <br/> Alocéntricos | Nearly Allocentrics | Midcentrics | Semipsychocentrics| Psychocentrics | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | They differ from normal values | Traveling as an opportunity to try new lifestyles | Cultural norm imposed by a vacation system with paid holidays | Traveling as a sociocultural norm| Agreement with social norms and values | Seeking variety | | | Socio-cultural norm | Sociable | Adventurous | | | | Autonomous| Confident | | | | Nervous| They choose destinations with little tourism | | | | Not adventurous| Zonal tourism. New cultures | | | | Destinations familiar| Unfamiliar destinations| | | | Home | Trips without organization | | | | Homely atmosphere| Traveling by plane | | | | Family atmosphere| Not organized travel| | | | Organized trips| Traveling by plane | | | | Land travel| This continuum is therefore divided into five segments: allocentric, semiallocentric, mediocentric, semipsychocentric, psychocentric. Certain estimates indicate that 4% of the population is purely allocentric and 2.5% purely psychocentric (Plog, 1985; cited in Nickerson 1989). Plog (1991b) lists 28 personality characteristics that describe allocentrism and psychocentrism individually. These 28 characteristics are captured in three predominant traits of personality: territorial limitation (territory boundness), generalized anxiety (generalized anxieties) and sense of powerlessness (sense of powerlessness) (Plog 1991b). The factors that characterize each of the bipolar dimensions are listed and defined in Table 3.6. The two intermediate dimensions have the following characteristics: a) Semialocentrism. For these individuals, travel represents an opportunity to try a new lifestyle (business tourists, conferences, meetings, conventions, theme tourists and sports tourists). b) Midcentrism. This dimension defines those who seek in their vacation destinations (especially sun and beach) an escape from routine in a comfortable place and in the company of family and friends. They use the services of travel agencies (prepared package). For this segment, travel is a cultural norm imposed by the vacation system with paid vacations. ### FIGURE 3.6 <br/> Close to allocentric | Mesocentric | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | |  | | Mesocentric | The 28 characteristics are captured in three predominant traits of personality: limitation territorial (territory boundness), generalized anxiety (generalized anxieties) and sense of powerlessness (sense of powerlessness) (Plog 1991b). The factors that characterize each of the bipolar dimensions are listed and defined in Table 3.6. ### TABLE 3.6 | Allocentrism | Factors | Psychocentrism | Factors | |---|---|---|---| | | **Daring** (Venturesomeness) | | Planning (Planfulness) | | | Impulses users to be the first in the discovery of new destinations and concepts. Escape from mass and gregariousness. Predominance of risk and audacity. | | Need for tourist planning and products and programs prepared. Predominance of the search for bargains and special offers. | | | **Masculinity** (Outdoorsman) | | **Pleasure-seeking** (Pleasure seeking) | | | Determines the tendency to travel towards rural or non-urban environments, avoiding luxury per se. Self-driving. Enjoyment of fishing, camping, hunting. | | Need for a high level of comfort, luxury, and comfort in different aspects of travel. | | | **Impulsivity** (Impulsivity) | Intellectualism | | | | Activates the need to act (decision to travel) with immediacy and precipitation without much planning (economic, etc). Momentary sensations and experiences predominate. Propensity to live in the present moment: these consumers are big spenders. | | High level of interest and desire for culture, directing towards historical and cultural destinations or also current destinations to explore (museum visits, etc.). It is the way the consumer channels his adventurous spirit, but not in an impulsive way, but rather in a moderated way. | | | **Self-confidence** (Self-confidence) | | **Personal orientation** (Personal orientation)| | | It is related to the desire and satisfaction of doing unique, unusual and very different things. It is about people who decide for themselves their destinations to feel different. | | Desires to mature through the experience of the world. Driven by the desire to mature through the experience of travel. For this to happen in a short trip, not through permanent residence, as would be logical, it is necessary to combine: great sociability, a degree of disorganization in the trip, not chaotic, geared to offering the freedom needed to live with other people and cultures of a more direct way, a certain degree of impulsivity, unique adventures. | **SOURCE** Own (adaptation of Plog's model). ### FIGURE 3.7 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/6q82c3y9/Fig37.png"> These dimensions are complemented by a second, energy/ non-energy, which is independent of the previous ones. The incorporation of this new dimension contributes to the theory the possibility of counting with several activity levels among travelers: energetic travelers seek high levels of tourist activities. ### TABLE 3.7 | Allocentrism | Psychocentrism | |---|---| | * Doing their own travel plans. |* Family-friendly destinations, culturally similar to where they live | | * Adventures. Not traveling in tourist packages, and if so, choosing exotic destinations. | * Common activities and places where there is sun and rest with a low level of activity | | * Enjoying new discoveries and experiences. |* Places where you can get there by car | | * Searching for and experiencing remote places. | * Large hotels or family-type restaurants and shops | | * Non-tourist areas, new places with a lot of activity. | * Family-friendly environment | | * Reaching your destination by plane. | * Organized group itineraries | | * Accommodations of medium quality, not necessarily chain-type and with few attractions. | * Complete packaged trips with intensive activity schedules | | * Dealing with foreign cultures. | * They are likely to repeat the destination | | * Staying with local residents and learning their culture and studying the flora and fauna. | | | * Rarely repeating the visit. | | **SOURCE:** Adaptation of Plog's model. The model of this American psychologist is based on a project funded by a consortium of 16 airlines and travel agencies that aimed to study the preferred structure of the population that does not use airplanes as a means of transport, which he calls -- non-flyers -- (non-flyers), contrary to those who do -- flyers -- (flyers). It started from the premise derived from his own observation based on the existence of a high percentage of individuals who, despite having enough economic status, rejected this means. The reasons that Plog attributes this attitude to: a phobic type of personality, the maintenance of old habits and the lack of familiarity with the means. The non-flyers suffered a type of generalized anxiety of a phobic nature that prevented them from practicing this type of displacement, and their personality was more dependent, with strong territorial ties. This category includes people he calls psychocentrics, referring to individuals who focus their thoughts on smaller geotourism areas. The opposite category and defined as allocentric, refers to individuals with an independent personality, focused on varied, new and risky activities and destinations. However, there is no data available on the sample. The sample is believed to be American -- non-flyers -- with high economic levels. The model has been used by other disciplines such as marketing to predict vacation destinations, developing psychographic measures of recent study, such as the use of personality and behavior items to achieve the establishment of corresponding segmented profiles. It is fair to say that Plog has created a theory of tourist behavior that the majority of researchers accept, despite having received some criticism, according to which psychographic traits influence tourist behavior characteristics. Let's examine the supporters of this model first. Griffith and Albanese (1996) review Plog's model based on the work of Willians, Ellis, and Daniels (1986), who examined the tourist preferences of allocentric and psychocentric individuals, confirming the predictive value of Plog's tourist personality dimension. Nikerson and Ellis (1991) verify successfully that Plog's model can be equally explained from the active development theory of Fiske and Maddi (1961), according to which personality types can be defined from variables such as destination preference, travel companions, interaction with the local culture, travel agency, and activity. An allocentric individual could enjoy new packages and different places thinking that they can get what they want: risks (they call it voracious tourtaker). However, they incorporate into the analysis a question related to the origin of that personality dimension. Are they learned skills, or results of personal characteristics?, leaning towards the former. Among the critics of Plog's model, we have Smith (1990), who, in his study on current traveler behavior in a multinational sample, reaches the conclusion that the model presents some flaws that do not allow us to accept the correlation between personality characteristics and destination preferences (Plog, 1991a) points out in this regard that Smith has used an instrument and the wrong sample. Lee-Hoxter and Lester (1988), contrary to what one might expect, also show a strong correlation. Using the Eysenck Personality Inventory (1970), they establish two personality dimensions: neuroticism and extraversion, and combining both, they define two types of tourists: a) high neuroticism and low extraversion = (it would correspond to the psychocentrism tourist) b) low neuroticism and high extraversion = (it would correspond to the allocentrism tourist) To demonstrate the correlation, a survey was conducted to a group of American college students, with the particularity that most of them had never traveled abroad. They wanted to establish a relationship between personality type (measuring neuroticism, extraversion and introversion) with the type of tourist destination chosen (allocentric or psychocentric). The results obtained were opposite to those proposed in the initial hypothesis. That is, a student with a high level of extraversion and low neuroticism chose psychocentrism destinations and a student with high levels of neuroticism and introversion, allocentrism destinations. In this regard, Ross (1994) criticizes the fact that the survey had been carried out on a specific segment of the population, with no tourist experience. Nor are the aspects of the methodology used, such as the type of question, the test model, tables or figures known. The conclusions would only be valid for women: women with low neurosis who had high extraversion marks were more psychocentric than those with high neurosis and few extraversion marks. That is, psychocentrism women had less neurosis and more extraversion than allocentrism women. As Ross points out, this study was carried out in three mediocentric destinations (Toronto, Nassau and Maui) and three allocentric destinations (Lima, Cairo, Moscow) , all related to extraversion. In the Spanish context, we have the work of Gómez, Canto and San Martín (1993) on the typology of roles played by tourists who visit the Costa del Sol, whose results are similar to those obtained by Yiannakis and Gibson (1992), which we will discuss later. They obtain three types of roles: cultured tourist, mass tourist and jet-set tourist whose behavioral characteristics are shown in Table 3.8. ### TABLE 3.8 | Role | Characteristics | |---|---| | Cultured tourist | Cares about the environment, good observer of Malaga society, interested in historical places, makes an effort to speak Spanish, tries not to pollute, wants to know archaeological ruins, flees from busy places, tries to integrate, looks for places that are difficult to access, tries local cuisine, organizes and improvises visits, looks for quiet places, visits well-known tourist places, practices their favorite sports | | Mass tourist | Tries to hit it off with Spaniards, has superficial adventures, drinks excessively, only thinks about getting a tan, beach more than night life, fights and arguments | | Jet-set tourist | Stays in the best hotels, eats and drinks in the top restaurants, attends top-class shows, goes to luxurious places, travels first class, goes to exclusive and VIP clubs, socializes with celebrities | | **SOURCE:** Gómez, Canto, San Martín (1993). Sociology, when it comes to conceptualizing the tourist, also uses the typology or classification system to differentiate the ways in which the tourist role can be adopted from other travel behaviors. The objective of these typologies is twofold: on the one hand, the complexity of the tourist phenomenon has already been mentioned, in which case it would not make sense to establish a single type of tourist. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect to find significant differences between tourists who have different motivational and behavioral styles, and therefore different levels of satisfaction. One of the first to address the concept of tourist in this way was Cohen (1972), already mentioned, who, starting from the premise that tourist behavior reflects stable and clearly identifiable designs, establishes four different classes of tourists, according to the degree of exposure to the environment visited. Cohen makes a general theoretical approach to the international tourist phenomenon, seeking to understand and classify the different attitudes that tourists adopt in the face of the tourism industry and the destination (host country). However, it is important to note that no sample is available on which the study is based. He develops a classification in which he distinguishes four typologies of tourists, within his model of tourism, with an institutional or non-institutional character (Table 3.9). ### TABLE 3.9 | Institutionalized Model | Non-institutionalized Model | |---|---| | Organized Mass Tourism | Individual mass tourism | Explorer | Drifter (Vagabond) | | Predominance of the environmental bubble | Predominance of self-organization | Predominance of comfort and familiarity | Dominance of integration | **SOURCE:** Cohen (1972). In the first model, Cohen places the two types of consumers -organized mass tourism and individual mass tourism- to which he attributes the feature he calls *enviroment bubble*, that is, the need to wrap themselves and be protected in what Cohen calls the environmental bubble of their own culture. Between these two typologies there are only subtle differences in terms of autonomy and novelty. On the contrary, in the second model, he includes those individuals, much more independent of that bubble, who try to integrate with the local population, avoiding the *establishment tourism* that surrounds this industry. The nuances in this case between the two typologies are the duration of the stay and the degree of direct contact with the host culture, especially the *drifters* (wandering travelers, vagabonds) adopting the ways of life of the local population. In this sense, Cohen (1972) focuses on a type of traveler who prefers to deviate from the conventional and avoid tourist establishments that he describes as seekers of enrichment and experiences, becoming what we consider hippies. Cohen (1974) considers that the tourist is a voluntary and temporary traveler whose only purpose is the search for pleasure, achieved through a change of environment for a relatively long period, but not unlimited, and he establishes the following characteristics that differentiate them from the non-tourist traveler: * Temporality (duration less than six months), * Voluntariness (trip not forced, neither by exile, nor by refuge), * Round-trip journey (not an emigrant), * Relatively long (more than 24 hours), * Not repeated (not always to the same place), * Non-instrumental (not for business), * Mobile (novelty and change), * Pleasure seeking. Later, in his work of 1979, Cohen (Table 3.10) improves the model with new typologies, applying as criteria, on the one hand, the degree to which the tourist seeks authenticity, a concept that I have already mentioned, and their identification with it at the destination and, on the other hand, the level of alienation with respect to their daily environment. The definitions and typologies, both of Burkart and Medlik (1981), as well as Yiannakis and Gibson (1992), within this sociological perspective, are based on a classification of the tourist, according to a series of characteristics, all related to the purposes or motives of the trip. In the first case, the characteristics that differentiate the tourists would be these: ### TABLE 3.10 | Degree of activity | Type of experience | |---|---| | **Sightseer** | **Vacationer** | | Tourist on tour or route | Tourist of stay, of residence | | Interested in visiting places and touring territories | Interested in tourist of stay, in residence | | **Recreative** | **Diversion** | **Experiential** | **Experimental** | **Existential** | | Subjects who are not alienated. Look for recreational and relaxing experiences | Alienated tourists who do not seek authenticity. | Interested in authenticity, although there is no identification with it. | Search for new lifestyles. They give great importance to authenticity | Completely alienated. Look for the encounter with oneself. Very related to authenticity. | | **SOURCE:** Cohen (1979). a) Travel to different destinations. b) Travel to destinations different from their place of work or residence. c) Travel to destinations different from their place of work or residence, to find work. d) Travel to places that are different from their place of work or residence. The typological system of Professors Yiannakis and Gibson (1992) is based on a scale of three dimensions with which they analyze the processes through which tourists' behaviors are conceptualized and measured. The results show the existence of at least 14 different tourist behaviors based on the tourist's motivation when planning their way of enjoying their leisure time and are shown in Table 3.11. The study was carried out in different phases (I, II, III, IV) between the years 1986 and 1990 through telephone interviews, firstly, to a random sample of 396 adults from Connecticut (USA) (phase I), then to a sample of 312 graduates and undergraduate students of the University of Connecticut (phase II), 521 subjects (phase III), a random sample of 527 Greek citizens and, lastly, a sample of 500 adults of the same city (phase IV). They considered age, gender, and educational level. Ages ranged from 18 to 74 years, the average being 37.5. Regarding the educational level: 47% had 4 years of college. Tourist roles were originally measured using 36 descriptions based on Cohen's (1979) and Pearce's (1982, 1985) role typologies. A 5-interval Likert scale was used to measure the responses. The results of the work of these authors suggest the existence of three bipolar dimensions: a) Simulation - Tranquility b) Foreignness - Familiarity c) Structure - Independence They mean that people adopt their tourist preferences when they are in places where they find a balance between familiarity (Cohen's bubble) and foreignness, simulation and tranquility, and structure and independence. After a review, Yiannakis and Gibson, reduce the system to three major types of tourists: a) Cultured tourist. b) Mass tourist. c) Jet-set tourist. ### FIGURE 3.8 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/Y9H8h89Z/Fig38.JPG"> ### FIGURE 3.9 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/Y9H8h89Z/Fig39.JPG"> ### TABLE 3.11 | Role | Interests and preferences | |---|---| | Sun lover | Interested in relaxation and pleasures of the sun, the sand, and the sea | | Exciting action seeker | Interested in parties, nightclubs and sex | | Anthropologist | Interested in encounters with people, food, and local language | | Archaeologist | Ruins and archaeological sites, history of ancient civilizations. | | Organized Mass Tourist | Organized vacations (packages), purchase of souvenirs and photos| | Adventurer | Interested in risks and new sensations| | Explorer | Interested in adventure trips exploring new places | | Elite (Jet-set) | Vacations in exclusive places, where celebrities go| | Spiritualist | Acquire knowledge to give meaning to life | | Individual mass tourist | Visit massive places but individually | | High-class tourist | Travel in first class, stay in the best hotels and restaurants | | Backpacker tourist (drifter) | No plan | | Escapist | Escape routine | | Sportsperson | Practice favorite sports | | **SOURCE**: Andrew Yiannakis and Heather Gibson (1992). ### FIGURE 3.10 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/k44gM62s/Fig310.JPG"> ### FIGURE 3.11 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/QdbwzR4j/Fig311.JPG"> In the introduction to the work of compilation: *Hosts and Guests*, Valene Smith (1989) offers, within the framework of anthropology, a classification based on the type of motivation for the leisure of tourists (Table 3.12.). ### TABLE 3.12 | Type | Motivation | |---|---| | Ethnic | Look for exotic customs. Travel outside conventional tourist circuits. | | Cultural | Look for a longed-for way of life. Focus on the picturesque, the local color | | Historical | Museums, ruins, monuments. The motivation is educational. | | Environmental | Look for different experiences in remote areas. Geographic tourism. Educational component. Look for landscapes and the relationship between man and earth. | | Recreational | Physical and moral relaxation. Beach, sea, and sex. | | **SOURCE**: Smith (1989). ### FIGURE 3.12 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/28T2Vq9p/Fig312.JPG"> ### FIGURE 3.13 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/bvg2j7t8/Fig313.JPG"> ### FIGURE 3.14 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc/t4v5n18n/Fig314.JPG"> ### FIGURE 3.15 <br/> <img src="https://i.postimg.cc